2026 Supreme(SC) 772

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Jaspal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Kumar – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2448 - 2449 of 2023
Decided On : 14-07-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Second Appeal – High Court, in a Second Appeal cannot interfere with findings of fact merely because it would have arrived at a different conclusion.
(2) Agreement to Sell – A co-owner’s undivided share in immovable property is a valid and marketable subject matter of transfer and Agreement to Sell – Transfer of undivided share is a legally recognised and enforceable transaction in its own right.
(3) An omission bearing on a collateral transaction cannot be permitted to do work of positive proof of fraud that respondent himself failed to discharge.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope and ambit – First Appellate Court is final Court of fact – High Court, in a Second Appeal cannot interfere with findings of fact merely because it would have arrived at a different conclusion on appreciation of same evidence – Interference is permissible only where findings are recorded without evidence, or by ignoring material evidence, or are otherwise vitiated by perversity – Finding of fact will not be disturbed unless it is vitiated for want of perversity. (Para 15)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Mere naming of an amount which may sound in damages is not, by itself, sufficient to defeat claim for specific performance unless it is clear on facts that sum was named in lieu of performance – There is neither any language of election, nor any stipulation entitling respondent to discharge bargain, at his option, by payment of any sum in lieu of executing Sale Deed – Agreement to Sell stood admitted – An omission bearing on a collateral transaction cannot be permitted to do work of positive proof of fraud that respondent himself failed to discharge. (Paras 20, 21 and 24)

(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – A co-owner’s undivided share in immovable property is a valid and marketable subject matter of transfer and Agreement to Sell such a share cannot be viewed with suspicion merely because vendor’s co-sharer brother was not made a signatory – Transfer of undivided share is a legally recognised and enforceable transaction in its own right – Mere fact that subject matter of Agreement was an undivided half share in a jointly owned property cannot support an inference that transaction was not genuine – Extensions of time granted by consent, without more, are wholly consistent with genuineness of transaction cannot, by themselves, found an interference to the contrary – Findings on execution of Agreement, on appellant’s readiness and willingness, and on falsity of respondent’s defence were pure findings of fact, unassailable in second appeal – High Court erred in reopening them without characterising them as perverse. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals which emanate from a judgment passed in Regular Second Appeal and an order passed in Review Petition by High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 3619 of 2012 (O&M) and RA-RS No. 87 of 2019 take exception to the judgment dated 08.02.2019 and order dated 10.07.2019 respectively, by which Regular Second Appeal filed by respondent was allowed and review petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

Findings of Court:

Judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in RSA No. 3619 of 2012 (O&M) and Order dated 10.07.2019 passed in RA-RS No.87 of 2019 passed by High Court are quashed and set aside. Judgment and decree dated 01.05.2012 passed by First Appellate Court in C.A. No.0100204 of 2010 is restored.

Result : Appeals allowed.